Stealth tax

[Dan B]

Hate to say it, but almost none of the road traffic accidents I've seen, been a part of, or heard about, have involved anyone breaking the speed limit: the direct cause has almost always been that someone was driving or riding like a twonk.

I don't have any sympathy with anyone who claims that a bright yellow camera is a form of stealth taxation, but do some of us maybe need a bit more of a sense of proportion? On-the-spot car crushing for aggressive tailgating, intimidating pedestrians, driving through honking great puddles at 30 when there are people standing on the pavement, U-turning without looking, I might go along with (are the passengers allowed to get out first?). But for a momentary 31 in a 30? Keeping within 3% of the speed limit at all times is not a measure of anything other than an ability to jump through hoops - it has as much relevance to road safety as being able to trackstand a bicycle

 

[thomas]

It does, because your reaction distances are shorter, so it's harder to avoid an incident.

No, sorry. You're wrong.

Or rather, you're not entirely right. Speed does increase the likelihood of a crash for the reasons I outlined in my post and more. However you are correct - it also makes the "accident" that much worse.

Those were quite eye opening...about a 1kph making a difference. Sooo, Finnnnnneeeeee! I was wrong. I was mainly just being difficult

 

[ufkacbln]

The problem with speed cameras is that they have become the main Road Traffic Enforcement tool to the detriment of using police officers to target bad driving. On the rare occasions police officers are sent out they just seem to rack up more speeders. Cameras don't deter the increasing number of European drivers on our roads because its to much like hard work for Camera Partnerships to pursue them, or the increasing number of people with false number plates etc.

Again mythology, the number of Police dedicated to Trafic has not changed any differently than other areas of Policing. Equally there are now reciprocal agreements for speeding and other offences with most EU countries.

The false plates are merely another aspect of criminality and to suggest that Camera Partnerships "can't be bothered" is desperate. No POlice Officer, no matter how magic you believe their abilities to be is any better at spotting false plates - in fact a camera with ANPR may be better!

Speed limits are also entirely random, my street which is narrow with cars down both sides has the same limit (30mph) as the main dual carriage way leaving town. 29 Mph up my street is lunacy but its within the limit.

Which simply proves that some drivers need to be taken of the road!

It is bad driving that causes most accidents, not speed, although excessive speed will normally make things worse, it is only the cause in a minority of accidents and even then it is often excessive for the conditions not the speed limit. More focus on driver training and harsher punishment for sins of commission such as mobile phone use, excessive speed or dangerous overtaking are required. Doing loads of people for doing 30.00001 Mph will simply lead to the courts being clogged with appeals about equipment calibration and the road safety message will be lost forever.

More mythology... There is a very generous allowance for speeding before you are "done"

At present in a 30 MPH you have to be doing 35 for a fixed penalty and 50 for a summons. In a 50 mph zone it is 57 (FP) and a summons is at 76

I know of many professions where such an error would be unacceptable.

Imagine if next time you buy a 5mm bolt for your rack it was 6mm or 7.5 mm - would you find that acceptable?

If your doctor was regularly overdosing or pharmacists making drugs by 50% or more - would that be acceptable?

 

[HJ]

Speed camera whingers - a voluntary tax for the stupid .

+1

I find my self in the odd position of agreeing with Crankarm

 

[mangaman]

Again mythology, the number of Police dedicated to Trafic has not changed any differently than other areas of Policing. Equally there are now reciprocal agreements for speeding and other offences with most EU countries.

Thnks for the heads up on that Cunobelin - I was about to challenge Dilbert on his assertion but didn't have the figures.

I spend a lot of time driving in Spain. They have really targetted road safety recenty and have reduced fatalities more than anywhere else in Europe I believe (from a high starting point).

They only introduced penalty points on licences in, I think 2006, and have a lot of unmarked plod with radar guns.

I have never had a penalty point in England in 25 years of driving but I am even more careful in Spain. The traffic police can be anywhere.

2 things I like in Spain

1) The police with radar move, so you don't just automatically slow down for each fixed speed camera

2) The regional newspaper (La Verdad de Murcia) has a feature every Monday on the front page of all deaths on the roads in the past week. Everyone there reads La Verdad and it personalises road KSIs which we in England resolutely refuse to do

 

[Crankarm]

+1

I find my self in the odd position of agreeing with Crankarm

Err ......... why do you find it odd ?

What are you implying?

 

[Brains]

Without getting involved in this argument can I just point out that the technology to limit the speed of a vehicle, road by road, connected to the GPS system already exists.

Therefore it would be relatively easy and cheap to insist that all vehicle from this day forth were fitted with GPS speed limiters (and black box recorders)

The fitted vehicles would keep the speed down of the non-fitted vehicles until, after about a decade they were in the majority. There would of course be those who bypassed the system, so the current cameras etc would stay for a couple of decades or more, but with the added 'felony' of speed limiter bypass.

As a byproduct of the reduced speed, think what that would do for the countries CO2 emissions. Add to that a new stealth tax of £5 every time you drive the first 1km in your car and a £1 per KM thereafter the government of the day could make a fortune, and reduce CO2 at the same time

Of course this will not happen in the UK for decades as the Government of the day is not serious about reducing speeds or CO2. (However the Danes are looking into this seriously now)

 

[Crankarm]

A few years ago VW even produced a Golf that drives itself, no driver necessary. Think what that could mean ..........

 

[PBancroft]

Those were quite eye opening...about a 1kph making a difference. Sooo, Finnnnnneeeeee! I was wrong. I was mainly just being difficult

I know. I forgive you.

 

[Cab]

What a delight to come home after a weekend away and find such a courteous, well informed and interesting discussion going on here. I applaud you all

Two things that I think have been touched on but need further thought are the impact of stopping distances and overtaking. A few musings from coming home last night by car (hire car because we don't have one, thats down from Hull to Cambridge on the A15/M180/A15/A46/A1/A1M/A428/A14 - so thats a broad assortment of 'fast' roads - dual carriageway, single carriageway A road, and motorway).

The impact of speed cameras on roads that didn't formerly have them is massive. I mean, the difference on the A14 and A15 (averaging speed cameras on the former, simple ones on the latter) between now and way back before cameras is enormous. Way less dangerous overtaking on the A15 - it used to be quite obvious that you'd be doing 60mph behind another car also doing 60mph, with a safe gap between you and the car in front, and you'd be leapfrogged by someone who wanted to do 80mph. You therefore had the simple choice of leaving insufficient safe space in front of you, or the certainty that some wasserk would be in that space anyway. And the number of times you'd have someone cut back in a crazy close distance in front was staggering; hardly surprising there were many accidents on that road!

Since speed cameras, that hardly ever happens. Its still an impatient road (aren't they all?), but the very high speed risk taking is way less common.

On the A14, with the averaging cameras, theres still far too much weaving in and out of lanes and silly overtaking, but again, comparing it with how it was before the average speed cameras, its hugely, massively better than it was. You can tell when you're on it or even just staring down from the cycle bridge; with most of the traffic doing nearly the same speed there is far less of the risk taking we used to see.

But on all of these roads the same major flaw in British driving is still apparent; they might all be doing 50, 60 or 70mph (or thereabouts), but the gaps left to the vehicle in front are far, far too short. Frankly, its a wonder that every single shunt on every major road in the UK doesn't end up a multi-car pile up. Either the British driver doesn't know, doesn't care, or can't use the guidance and rules we have for safe stopping distance. Whatever the speed limit of the road the distance left seems very similar, and it is all too often too short.

This isn't regularly enforced. Its not going to be regularly enforced. The only alternative is to limit the severity and likelyhood of accidents being caused by or worsened by this, and the way you do that is with speed control.

So, controlling speed isn't just a goal in itself, the impact it has more broadly on road safety is huge. Stealth tax? In the form of bright road signs and brighter cameras? Only if stealth now means 'sensible way of stopping people doing stupid things in a bleeding obvious way'.

I don't favour massive fines for speeding, but I would certainly favour a 'two strikes and your out' policy. One mistake? Fine, happens. Do it twice, get the hell off the roads.

 

[Davidc]

Going faster doesn't increase the probability of having a crash.

Yes it does.

Couldn't agree more...David's comments on making a making someone who does 0.03mph over the speed limit loose 2 months salary, the ability to drive for a year and another few thousand pounds worth of car is ridiculous. It's a worst punishment that you'd get for robbery or assault.

Robbery and assault carry the likelihood of custodial sentences, which probably wouldn't be appropriate for a first speding offence.

Exceeding speed limits kills. It needs an appropriate punishment. I view speeders as far worse criminals than most others

I consider what I have suggested here to be mild. As with all crimes there's no need for anyone to receive the puishment, all thats needed is to obey the law.

 

[Debian]

Yes it does.



Robbery and assault carry the likelihood of custodial sentences, which probably wouldn't be appropriate for a first speding offence.

Exceeding speed limits kills. It needs an appropriate punishment. I view speeders as far worse criminals than most others

I consider what I have suggested here to be mild. As with all crimes there's no need for anyone to receive the puishment, all thats needed is to obey the law.

I agree with you.

There is no need for and no excuse for speeding. There's no excuse for getting caught speeding so whether or not you agree that "speed kills" there's no excuse for breaking the law.

As far as I'm concerned penalties for all motoring offences, including speeding, should be far more severe than they are currently. IMO being caught speeding by more than 10% of the posted limit twice within a ten year period should be an instant ban with no mitigation possible; caught three times then your vehicle is confiscated and crushed.

 

[BentMikey]

There's no need for harsher penalties, IMO. Just more enforcement of all traffic offences, not just speeding. More enforcement, including hidden cameras, would have an excellent effect on people's driving.

 

[Cab]

There's no need for harsher penalties, IMO. Just more enforcement of all traffic offences, not just speeding. More enforcement, including hidden cameras, would have an excellent effect on people's driving.

The evidence available from roads where averaging speed cameras are being used suggests that this is so. To extend that to monitor other road traffic offences seems like the obvious next step.

 

[Davidc]

I agree totally about better enforcement. IMO we should have both, better enforcement and much harsher punishment.

There are unnecessary deaths and injuries in vast numbers on the roads. Until there are none there can be no excuse for breaking driving and road law, and our politiciaand bear a heavy responsibility by not enforcing the laws which are there already.

To describe speeding fines as a stealth tax is amoral.